More guided or less guided ?

[Outsider]

Thankyou. I would love to hear how others also might go about dealing with this atheist's argument which, to me, suggests that he is saying that scripture is not God breathed but rather man created for control purposes. Something we don't need.

Isn't that one of the central tenets of atheism? That all religion is a scam to keep the priests and kings in control of the people?

[Sudsy]

Thankyou. I would love to hear how others also might go about dealing with this atheist's argument which, to me, suggests that he is saying that scripture is not God breathed but rather man created for control purposes. Something we don't need.

Isn't that one of the central tenets of atheism? That all religion is a scam to keep the priests and kings in control of the people?

It could be. I am only familiar with an atheist being one who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

His argument is that because of what Jesus said in those references given, that the OT should still be literally followed as these other OT scriptures he referenced stated. Therefore, because these contradict what else Jesus said about not killing, etc. the scriptures are inconsistent and are man created not God inspired. Take for instance this text - Mathew 5:18-19

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

He takes this scripture in a literal sense to make his point. How would you correct him in how this verse should be understood ? Anyone ?

[Outsider]

Isn't that one of the central tenets of atheism? That all religion is a scam to keep the priests and kings in control of the people?

It could be. I am only familiar with an atheist being one who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

Which implies a lot of other assumptions which naturally follow. Variations can be applied to the theme, but they will all eventually agree the Priests were tricking the people.

His argument is that because of what Jesus said in those references given, that the OT should still be literally followed as these other OT scriptures he referenced stated. Therefore, because these contradict what else Jesus said about not killing, etc. the scriptures are inconsistent and are man created not God inspired. Take for instance this text - Mathew 5:18-19

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

He takes this scripture in a literal sense to make his point. How would you correct him in how this verse should be understood ? Anyone ?

"until all is accomplished"


John 19:30
when, therefore, Jesus received the vinegar, he said, `It hath been finished;' and having bowed the head, gave up the spirit.

[Outsider]

Sudsy mentioned "interpretation" in an earlier post, and I'd like to revisit that particular topic. I hold this particular belief on "interpretation":

The only scripture which is open to "interpretation" is what we call "apocalyptic" or symbolic scripture. While it's true that we can disagree on what is symbolic or allegoric (i.e. Gen 1-2), there is much effort put into "interpreting" scripture which is a plain statement, and agreed upon by all as a plain statement.

The head-covering, for example, didn't used to be the sole province of the plain anabaptist churches. My great-grandmother, and my great aunts never would have considered going to church without a hat. Plain or gaudy, it was still a head-covering.

Women being silent in the churches was never questioned- though my great-grandmother did lead singing during service one Sunday when the song-leader was not available, and none of the men would step up, she still didn't involve herself in teaching or debating the word of God.

"Modernism" questioned these things. It's that view that I've decried before that comes from "We have phones, and lights, and motorcars, so we have greater understanding of all things than those primitives who wrote the bible". And they go on to claim that head-coverings, women's silence, and other things are just "cultural adaptations" and not to be taken seriously by believers.

This is why I hate Modernism.

[Sudsy]

Sudsy mentioned "interpretation" in an earlier post, and I'd like to revisit that particular topic. I hold this particular belief on "interpretation":

The only scripture which is open to "interpretation" is what we call "apocalyptic" or symbolic scripture. While it's true that we can disagree on what is symbolic or allegoric (i.e. Gen 1-2), there is much effort put into "interpreting" scripture which is a plain statement, and agreed upon by all as a plain statement.

The head-covering, for example, didn't used to be the sole province of the plain anabaptist churches. My great-grandmother, and my great aunts never would have considered going to church without a hat. Plain or gaudy, it was still a head-covering.

Women being silent in the churches was never questioned- though my great-grandmother did lead singing during service one Sunday when the song-leader was not available, and none of the men would step up, she still didn't involve herself in teaching or debating the word of God.

"Modernism" questioned these things. It's that view that I've decried before that comes from "We have phones, and lights, and motorcars, so we have greater understanding of all things than those primitives who wrote the bible". And they go on to claim that head-coverings, women's silence, and other things are just "cultural adaptations" and not to be taken seriously by believers.

This is why I hate Modernism.

A little push back as I believe it is a good thing to question certain things in how they are applicable today -

Picking one, lets consider slavery. In Jesus days on earth, He did not try to change the slave system but rather told believing Christians how to conduct themselves in that system whether they be a slave or a slave master. But over a century ago most agreed to get rid of that slave system although it took a period to do that. Wasn't that being modern ? A new way that was a better way for mankind. Not all modern ways are going 'down hill'. If Christians were to follow what Jesus said, we would still insist on having slaves.

The same kind of support can be given in today's world for women in church leadership, foot washing, dropping the holy kiss, etc. as the situation and culture norms today have changed. Women have as much access as men to education. Foot washing is not needed on paved roads. The holy kiss is not a custom in most culture.

Just because something is a 'plain statement' does not make all plain statements valid for all time. Water baptisms in scripture are plain statements to fully immerse but it didn't take long for other forms to take hold, modernize to accommodate. The dress men and women wore in Jesus day was not a cape dress or anything like most head-coverings worn today or for men, pants with suspenders but if we are to live as they lived we should go back to robes and sandals, right ?

Interesting on how women must obey these 'plain statements' when other statements for men are disregarded. 1 Tim 2:8 - 'Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.' When men pray today, why are we disobeying this plain statement ?

So, if Christians chose to follow the scriptural text in some areas very literally and not other texts, then isn't that their choice and God will be their judge ?

Well, got to go for now. These issues have been kicked around on this forum since it began. There are other modern views I believe are more concerning than these but these get a lot of mileage here.

[Outsider]

Picking one, lets consider slavery. In Jesus days on earth, He did not try to change the slave system but rather told believing Christians how to conduct themselves in that system whether they be a slave or a slave master. But over a century ago most agreed to get rid of that slave system although it took a period to do that. Wasn't that being modern ? A new way that was a better way for mankind. Not all modern ways are going 'down hill'. If Christians were to follow what Jesus said, we would still insist on having slaves.

I don't know if we'd be insisting on having slaves (I really doubt slavery would have survived even without the Civil War in the US- because mechanization is cheaper and more efficent). The New Covenant only asked that believers accept their status as they were called, or "Not resist the evil".

The same kind of support can be given in today's world for women in church leadership, foot washing, dropping the holy kiss, etc. as the situation and culture norms today have changed. Women have as much access as men to education. Foot washing is not needed on paved roads. The holy kiss is not a custom in most culture.

You're really comparing apples and oranges here. It was never a command to keep slaves. Merely to endure servitude.

Apple:

1.) Foot washing is not a direct command. People do it to emulate Christ voluntarily. And as with any other ritual it can be done by deep commitment to the humility and service Christ wanted to exemplify by doing it, or it might be an empty show- but it is not commanded in either the old or new testament. It is a traditon. One should not be condemned for not following it.

Orange:
It is clearly commanded "of God" that women should not teach or stand over men, or speak in the assembly.

"37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Just because something is a 'plain statement' does not make all plain statements valid for all time. Water baptisms in scripture are plain statements to fully immerse but it didn't take long for other forms to take hold, modernize to accommodate.

If that's true, let's all hoist the rainbow flag, and consummate gay marriages on the altar whilst putting on a good bender. A command is a command. You might not go to hell for missing it- but you surely could- and you're surely denying yourself a blessing. Christ was sinless, yet he was baptised, and received a blessing from the Father for it. Are you greater than he, that you can do without the blessing?

Galatians 1:19
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The dress men and women wore in Jesus day was not a cape dress or anything like most head-coverings worn today or for men, pants with suspenders but if we are to live as they lived we should go back to robes and sandals, right ?

Nope. Not what I'm saying at all. My grandma wore those gaudy little hats with the little berries & such on them. It was a headcovering though. Modesty doesn't require a specific type of dress- just that it be modest and not styled to be suggestive or exaggerate the sexuality of the person wearing it. This goes for men and women.

Interesting on how women must obey these 'plain statements' when other statements for men are disregarded. 1 Tim 2:8 - 'Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.' When men pray today, why are we disobeying this plain statement ?

I lift up my hands when I pray, but I think that's something like footwashing. Paul wants, he did not say "God commands". But men are disobeying plain statements like one's who wear mitres or skull-caps or other hats when praying.

It's betrayal of these commands that the carnal man doesn't take as "serious" that quenches the spirit and gives the enemy advantage in the world of the spirit which surrounds us. As Paul says about the women's headcovering, it is "on account of the Angels".

So, if Christians chose to follow the scriptural text in some areas very literally and not other texts, then isn't that their choice and God will be their judge ?

I can't, in good conscience, worship with a group that doesn't have men bare-headed, and women covered. Nor with women pastors and such. You may as well have a married gay pastor as a woman.

It has nothing to do with the education. Men and women are different, have different emotional priorities, and different spiritual priorities. Eve had as much education as Adam. And probably the women in the early church had as much or sometimes more education than the average man.


1 Cor 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

"Education" is another idol of Modernity. It's not evil or bad to have an education, in fact it's good for getting by in the world at-large. But it's not a requisite for salvation, or required for leadership in the Church (biblically)- seminaries and theological schools notwithstanding.

Well, got to go for now. These issues have been kicked around on this forum since it began. There are other modern views I believe are more concerning than these but these get a lot of mileage here.

I'm sure they have, and do.

[RZehr]

Feet washing wasn’t a command?

[Soloist]

Feet washing wasn’t a command?

13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

Sounds like a command to me. I wonder if the Holy Spirit would agree with Jesus?

[Outsider]

14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

I stand corrected.

[Sudsy]

Picking one, lets consider slavery. In Jesus days on earth, He did not try to change the slave system but rather told believing Christians how to conduct themselves in that system whether they be a slave or a slave master. But over a century ago most agreed to get rid of that slave system although it took a period to do that. Wasn't that being modern ? A new way that was a better way for mankind. Not all modern ways are going 'down hill'. If Christians were to follow what Jesus said, we would still insist on having slaves.

I don't know if we'd be insisting on having slaves (I really doubt slavery would have survived even without the Civil War in the US- because mechanization is cheaper and more efficent). The New Covenant only asked that believers accept their status as they were called, or "Not resist the evil".

But my point is that what Jesus and NT writers preached to be practised in that culture, we do not practise as Christians in our culture. I don't go to somewhere else in this world where I can continue being a Christian with slaves so I can literally follow what is written in the New Testament. Instead we look at what the message is that the NT gives behind the practise and try to apply it as such.

The same kind of support can be given in today's world for women in church leadership, foot washing, dropping the holy kiss, etc. as the situation and culture norms today have changed. Women have as much access as men to education. Foot washing is not needed on paved roads. The holy kiss is not a custom in most culture.

You're really comparing apples and oranges here. It was never a command to keep slaves. Merely to endure servitude.

Apple:

1.) Foot washing is not a direct command. People do it to emulate Christ voluntarily. And as with any other ritual it can be done by deep commitment to the humility and service Christ wanted to exemplify by doing it, or it might be an empty show- but it is not commanded in either the old or new testament. It is a traditon. One should not be condemned for not following it.

Again, when Jesus gave instructions on foot washing, was it the literal practise that was important (a cultural norm when entering someone's home) or was it an attitude of service for us to not be considering ourselves better than another but rather to be as a servant to one another ?

Also, I was raised in a church that did once a year foot washing. Nothing wrong with acting out this practise if the idea of being a servant to each other in what might be considered the lowliest of tasks but this task in that time and place was a norm. What was not a norm was that they washed each other's feet and not just be served if you were not a servant/slave. Since this was an ongoing task in that setting, it was not a once a year type of event. I believe Jesus used this practise to teach us to be servants of one another throughout the year.

Orange:
It is clearly commanded "of God" that women should not teach or stand over men, or speak in the assembly.

"37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

What is not said is that they are commandments of the Lord for all believers for all time. There is no doubt in my mind from historical data that women did not have the education or exposure to biblical studies as a man. It would not help further the Kingdom at that time to get women involved in certain ministry whereas today, God is using many women in leading roles especially in the foreign mission settings.

Just because something is a 'plain statement' does not make all plain statements valid for all time. Water baptisms in scripture are plain statements to fully immerse but it didn't take long for other forms to take hold, modernize to accommodate.

If that's true, let's all hoist the rainbow flag, and consummate gay marriages on the altar whilst putting on a good bender. A command is a command. You might not go to hell for missing it- but you surely could- and you're surely denying yourself a blessing. Christ was sinless, yet he was baptised, and received a blessing from the Father for it. Are you greater than he, that you can do without the blessing?

If you sense the guiding of the Spirit to take every NT written command as applicable to all Christians for all time, then follow that leading and be blessed. Regarding water baptism (immersion) not only did the full immersion get changed in the earliest practise but the literal names used was not according to what Jesus literally said. No one, as recorded in the NT, immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did Peter start a new way to baptise and disregard what Jesus commanded ? If we look at the text literally, he did.

So, in this case, the symbol for baptism (immersion-dying to sin and rising to right living) was of significance. In the Didache we find qualifications outlined for water baptism found nowhere in the NT. So, the NT practise literally has not been followed by many Christians, many Anabaptists too.

Galatians 1:19
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I don't see the connection here with preaching the gospel unless you are saying that not taking all scriptures literally in practise is another gospel.

The dress men and women wore in Jesus day was not a cape dress or anything like most head-coverings worn today or for men, pants with suspenders but if we are to live as they lived we should go back to robes and sandals, right ?

Nope. Not what I'm saying at all. My grandma wore those gaudy little hats with the little berries & such on them. It was a headcovering though. Modesty doesn't require a specific type of dress- just that it be modest and not styled to be suggestive or exaggerate the sexuality of the person wearing it. This goes for men and women.

So you are not in support of cape dresses or headcoverings as was historically worn in the NT ? Well, then it seems you agree with what a covering means and not the literal practise of the early church culture. As long as a woman has something, more than her hair, on her head (including a see through little cap that basically covers very little) she is obeying scripture ? And as long as a woman wears modest clothing, cape dress or otherwise, she is in obedience ? Do I understand your view here ?

Interesting on how women must obey these 'plain statements' when other statements for men are disregarded. 1 Tim 2:8 - 'Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.' When men pray today, why are we disobeying this plain statement ?

I lift up my hands when I pray, but I think that's something like footwashing. Paul wants, he did not say "God commands". But men are disobeying plain statements like one's who wear mitres or skull-caps or other hats when praying.

It's betrayal of these commands that the carnal man doesn't take as "serious" that quenches the spirit and gives the enemy advantage in the world of the spirit which surrounds us. As Paul says about the women's headcovering, it is "on account of the Angels".

So you lift your hands to pray 'everywhere' (if taken literally), like in a restaurant when you say grace ? And when Paul talks about women not wearing certain things just after men praying with lifted hands (1 Timothy 2) he says all this beginning with it being Paul's desire or what Paul wants. He didn't say God commands these things forever and ever.

Could it be that what 'quenches the Spirit' is when Christians get hung up on these kind of things and we debate them forever while we are not reaching the lost who Jesus came to save, self included ?

So, if Christians chose to follow the scriptural text in some areas very literally and not other texts, then isn't that their choice and God will be their judge ?

I can't, in good conscience, worship with a group that doesn't have men bare-headed, and women covered. Nor with women pastors and such. You may as well have a married gay pastor as a woman.

It has nothing to do with the education. Men and women are different, have different emotional priorities, and different spiritual priorities. Eve had as much education as Adam. And probably the women in the early church had as much or sometimes more education than the average man.

And those are your choices as you understand what scripture requires of you. Others believe we are in a culture where men and women do now have opportunities to lead that they never had before and God is using some of them to further His Kingdom. I am one who observes the later to be true.

1 Cor 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

"Education" is another idol of Modernity. It's not evil or bad to have an education, in fact it's good for getting by in the world at-large. But it's not a requisite for salvation, or required for leadership in the Church (biblically)- seminaries and theological schools notwithstanding.

I view education somewhat like money. Having too much can get a grip on us that actually can make us stray from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Well, got to go for now. These issues have been kicked around on this forum since it began. There are other modern views I believe are more concerning than these but these get a lot of mileage here.

I'm sure they have, and do.

I believe it is good to consider each other's understanding of the Scriptures and what is applicable today and how. I also believe the Holy Spirit can and does guide us in how to live as a Christ follower today in the cultures we live in. Are people being drawn to Christ by how we apply scripture or are they being turned off. What is the bottom line affect on how we live our lives before the yet-to-be-saved. Do they see Christ or do they see religion, a life of dos and don'ts. I wish I could say those I have contact with were drawn to the Christ living in me as who they need in their lives. I know it isn't God's fault when they don't.